From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Subject: Re: issues to be resolved before last call (rdfms-assertion)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:59:39 +0100
>
> [...]
>
> >> which can be proof checked
> >> the rdfs:comment remains opaque, we just have the reason
> >
> >In this case the social meaning is supposed to come from a natural langauge
> >rdfs:comment, so you can proof check back to the rdfs:comment. However,
> >this doesn't get you anywhere close to the social meaning. How are you
> >going to get there?
> >
> >Also, what if the social meaning comes from an XML comment? What if it
> >comes from something not on the web at all?
>
> well right, no answers, remember
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0297.html
> [[[
> The point is also that we cannot use a single notion of
> 'meaning' to say this properly, since of course the formal
> entailments cannot themselves utilize the social aspects
> of meaning which are included in *informal* aspects of the
> publication, such as in a comment which is opaque to any
> likely RDF inference engine or machine processor. Social
> meanings can be, as it were, transferred or carried by
> formal entailments, but they cannot be incorporated into
> the formal entailments.
> ]]]
>
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
So, in other words, social meaning cannot even be proof checked, not even
just to the point of getting to a natural language string that might carry
the social meaning.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies